Action brought on 24 August 2021 – VY v Commission

(Case T-519/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VY (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 25 May 2021;

consequently, declare that the complaint lodged is admissible;

as regards the substance, annul the decision dated 30 March 2020;

consequently, declare that the applicant is entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action against the Commission’s decision refusing to grant her a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, arguing that the complaint of 2 February 2021 is admissible. The applicant submits that the complaint lodged is admissible on the ground that the decision of 30 March 2020 was not an administrative decision that could be the subject of an action and that, consequently, the view could legitimately be taken that it was merely a letter informing her of the steps to be taken following the death of her spouse.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful because it is in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminates on the ground of the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted that article as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in the interpretation of the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the general evolution of European society as regards living together calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the failure to take into account the applicant’s individual situation. In that regard, the applicant submits, first, that she lived with her spouse for more than 32 years, second, they had a child together and, lastly, when her husband’s state of health deteriorated, she was by his side to help him.

____________